Sadiq Khan (This is worse than Iraq, July 28) is right to condemn the deaths of Lebanese civilians as a war crime, but he puts the blame on the wrong party. When Hizbullah fires missiles at Israel from civilian centres or near United Nations outposts in Lebanon, it is deliberately exposing these civilians to the dangers of an Israeli counterstrike.

Israel, for its part, has no choice but to strike at Hizbullah wherever it fires at Israeli civilians, otherwise Hizbullah will be able to attack Israel with virtual impunity. Israel must act in self-defense to protect its civilians' lives. It has tried to avoid causing civilian casualties, going to such lengths as dropping leaflets informing civilians that they should leave the area. Hizbullah, by contrast, does not warn Israeli civilians of imminent attacks.Stephen A Silver Walnut Creek, California, USA

Sadiq Khan's claim that the current tragedy in Lebanon is worse than the conflagration in Iraq is a cynical piece of opportunism designed to deflect attention away from the horrendous war crimes his party has aided and supported in Iraq. The initial shock, awe and terror of US and British firepower followed by campaigns in Najaf and Falluja, with thousands of innocent civilians killed as a consequence of this reckless and vengeful adventure, is a far more brazen act of criminality and disregard for civilian life.

More ridiculous and hypocritical is the suggestion that Blair and the British government have any credibility in protecting innocent civilians from the current war between Israel and Hizbullah. The Israeli adventure is a mere encore to the trailblazing Iraqi campaign. At its core is the hubris of military prowess and might that forges its moral order in the crosshairs of weapons-guiding systems.Russell Caplan London

Jonathan Steele was right to raise the image of Rafah in relation to what Israel is planning in Lebanon (Only Hizbullah can defend against an Israeli invasion, July 28). While pretending that it is scaling back ground operations, it is in fact depopulating southern Lebanon - and the supplier of weaponry to aid this is the US, backed by Blair.

The never-ending air barrages clear the mainly Shia villages (as was done in the Golan Heights taken from Syria in 1967). This action has been planned since 2000, when Israel supposedly "left" Lebanon, with the Shebaa farms strip of land as the bone in the gullet. The real aim was the vision of Ben Gurion, Israel's founding leader, that Israel's border should be "natural" - that is the Jordan river in the east and the Litani river of Lebanon in the north.

In fact, 750,000 refugees will never be allowed to return if Israel has its way. and south of the Litani river will probably see the first of the Israeli settlements being established in newly occupied territory - this time in Lebanon, which will remain devastated for years to come.Abe Hayeem Edgware, Middlesex

The elephant in Jonathan Steele's argument is that without Hizbullah's recent provocations, or the PLO's in the 70s, there would be no risk of an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The Lebanese frontier was quiet from 1949 to 1971, when the PLO arrived after King Hussein stopped them posing in Jordan. After 2000 there was no reason not to sign a peace treaty on Egyptian Jordanian model. Only it would have cramped Syria's style in the same way as Syria stumping the 1982 treaty by assassinating Bashir Gemayel.Frank Adam Prestwich, Cheshire

Dr Dennis MacEoin states that "Hizbullah ... is dedicated to the extermination of the Jewish state" (Letters, July 28). This is not so - Hizbullah is an organisation established after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon whose aim was to liberate its lands from occupation. This is still its stated aim in relation to the Shebaa farms. It is also a political party and a humanitarian organisation within its Lebanese power base.Peter Lamb Bristol